2 ms·
The main use-case is for building peer-to-peer systems with small eng resources. The win is basically that the entire stack gets much less complex. Network, d
by sol_plunder 3y ago
The main use-case is for building peer-to-peer systems with small eng resources.
The win is basically that the entire stack gets much less complex. Network, database, and business logic all operate within the same model.
For example, once the system is finished, building a full p2p chat should be possible in a couple hundred LOC.
The goal is somewhat political, to enable people to build their own social software, instead of depending on finance for everything.
> I also don't think I can see such a design ever doing anything very quickly, as every operation is necessarily committed to disk.
There is overhead to be sure, but it's nowhere near as bad as it sounds.
In practice, we don't need to fsync every input. Each syscall chooses if it should wait for a sync before running effect. Sync only blocks that effect, everything else continues to run.
For example most REPL IO doesn't need to wait for a sync, but a network transaction does.
- Nursie 3y agoI’m not seeing that simplicity or low-engineering overhead from reading about PLAN, personally, I’m seeing a computer scientist’s wet dream about composability and resilience, but not anything that would promote rapid development or reduced costs. In fact I think the opposite is true - this is such a reinvention that everything is likely to take subject matter experts and a lot of time. P2P chat doesn’t seem like a very lofty goal at this point. I’m sure there’s a lot more to your platform than PLAN, providing all sorts of facilities, but at that point you’ve kinda scuppered the “execute anywhere, forever” aspect of your model IMHO, because it relies on quite a complex VM to provide the simple coding environment. Best of luck to you, but I’m still thinking “nerd trap” rather than “revolutionary tech”.
- sol_plunder 3y ago[dead]